As Seen in Vanity Fair's August 2006 Issue!
As Seen in US News & World Report's September 11 Fifth Anniversary Issue!
As Seen in Time Magazine's September 11, 2006 Issue!
As Seen in Phoenix New Times' August 9, 2007 Issue!

Saturday, March 31, 2012

They've Got Models....

The video starts off with about 3:40 of JREF forum member and NASA engineer Ryan Mackey describing a possible model that could be used to analyze the collapse of the towers. So far so good. But what follows shows the flaw in casting pearls before swine. Truther psikeyhacker builds a model that has metal washers for the floors and paper loops. Right off the bat, he completely misses the point about scaling that Ryan was very careful to note in his discussion.

But here we are ten years later and most of the "Academics" can't think to demand accurate data about the distributions of steel and concrete down the towers. High school physics students should have known to ask that in 2001. The "Academics" should have made the Truth Movement unnecessary.

See, he thinks that somehow the "distributions" (sic) of steel and concrete in the towers is crucial to determining whether they would actually collapse and do the damage shown. Never mind that very good approximations can be made for the actual distributions and that when those approximations are made it has been demonstrated that the gravitational potential energy stored in the towers was quite sufficient to do the damage shown. Note also the usual blather about how grade school or high school physics should be sufficient to prove that the towers did not come down the way we were told. And later:

I say this is GRADE SCHOOL PHYSICS. 7th and 8th graders should be able to understand why it is ridiculous to think that an airliners weighing less than 200 tons could totally obliterate skyscrapers more than 400,000 tons each.

What difference does the weight make? By the "logic" he's using here, a small match, which can't weigh more than a gram at best, could never totally obliterate a large wooden house. Note that when others mention that if this were truly the case, then physics professors would have raised a ruckus, he uses the conspiracy theorist's favorite card:

Look at it from another perspective. Suppose most physicists could figure out within days that there was no way airliners could destroy those buildings. But the buildings were destroyed. That means something other than airliners did it and some organisation that has A LOT of power does not care who they kill or how many.

So is a physicists with a career and a family going to stick his neck out?

Yep, the physicists kept quiet because they knew the plotters would chop their necks off. Of course, Steven Jones and David Chandler have somehow remained in the land of the living, but that's probably because they haven't pursued the "distributions" issue. And no, psikeyhacker is not a physicist himself (which his probably why he thinks it should be obvious to 7th graders); he's apparently involved in computers somehow, although he isn't very knowledgeable about his own field:

I worked for IBM for years. I never heard the term von Neumann machine or saw it in any documentation. I soldered together my first computer while there so that is how I really learned how they actually worked despite being sent to numerous IBM courses. It wasn't until after I left IBM that I learned that IBM hired John von Neumann as a consultant in 1952 and that nearly all computers are von Neumann machines.

Ian, why would you expect the engineering faculty at MIT or Stanford to tell us the official theories of the collapse of the WTC are wrong? The first thing both Stanford and MIT did in responding to 9/11 was lie to us, claiming that jet fuel could melt the steel.

Ian, why would you expect the engineering faculty at MIT or Stanford to tell us the official theories of the collapse of the WTC are wrong?

I wouldn't, because the theories are largely correct. I wouldn't expect the biology department at Harvard to tell us that evolutionary biology is wrong either, even though there are crackpots and frauds who challenge it.

The first thing both Stanford and MIT did in responding to 9/11 was lie to us, claiming that jet fuel could melt the steel.

Exactly. We don't have serious scientists challenging the theories of the collapse. Instead, we have unemployed janitors telling us how the entire scientific community is covering up the conspiracy.

That's why you're so entertaining, Brian. Even though you're a failed janitor who sniffs glue, wears women's underwear, and babbles about invisible widows, you think we care what you have to say. No, we just enjoy taunting you so you get upset, start squealing, and call us "girls".

Skidmark, NIST's theories violate the laws of thermodynamics. NIST acknowledges that WTC7 fell for 2.25 seconds at freefall. This is impossible according to the first law of thermodynamics--unless explosives or incendiaries are used to remove the supporting structure below.

You claim that Stanford and MIT don't challenge NIST because NIST is correct. NIST is not correct, and the fact that they removed from their final report the claim that their analysis was "consistent with physical principles" shows that they know they're not correct.

You can not challenge me on the facts. The only way you can muster the appearance of an argument is to lie about me instead of addressing the facts.

Are you claiming that Dr. Lynn Margulis, Dr. Robert Bowman, Dr. David Gregg, Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, and 40 PhD engineers are not serious scientists? Where do you get the qualifications to say that?

Skidmark, NIST's theories violate the laws of thermodynamics. NIST acknowledges that WTC7 fell for 2.25 seconds at freefall. This is impossible according to the first law of thermodynamics--unless explosives or incendiaries are used to remove the supporting structure below.

You claim that Stanford and MIT don't challenge NIST because NIST is correct. NIST is not correct, and the fact that they removed from their final report the claim that their analysis was "consistent with physical principles" shows that they know they're not correct.

You're a failed janitor who sniffs glue and wears women's underwear. If anyone cared what you think, you wouldn't endlessly post the same dumbspam at this blog only to get mocked by normal people.

You can not challenge me on the facts. The only way you can muster the appearance of an argument is to lie about me instead of addressing the facts.

Squeal squeal squeal!

Are you claiming that Dr. Lynn Margulis, Dr. Robert Bowman, Dr. David Gregg, Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, and 40 PhD engineers are not serious scientists? Where do you get the qualifications to say that?

I'm saying that you're not a serious scientist. You're a failed janitor who believes in modified attack baboons, magic thermite elves, and invisible widows. Nobody cares what you have to say about the people you mentioned above.

So let's review. I pointed out that no scientists have challenged the accepted theories of the WTC collapse and that the only delusional unemployed janitors who live with their parents challenge the accepted theories.

And then we get a challenge to the theories from a delusional unemployed janitor who lives with his parents.

Ian--Dr. Lynn Margulis, Dr. Robert Bowman, Dr. David Gregg, Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, and 40 PhD engineers challenge the NIST reports. Are you going to claim they are all failed janitors who believe in modified attack elves?

MGF, scientists at Stanford and MIT said that jet fuel could melt --not weaken -- steel. They were lying. And for you to shift the goal posts from "melt" to "weaken" makes you a liar too.

Where do you get the idea that I dropped out of SJSU--you CSUMB dropout? Don't tell me--you're afraid to graduate because if you did you would have to face the fact that the opportunities you imagine for yourself do not exist.

Ian--Dr. Lynn Margulis, Dr. Robert Bowman, Dr. David Gregg, Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, and 40 PhD engineers challenge the NIST reports. Are you going to claim they are all failed janitors who believe in modified attack elves?

Brian, I told you, I want a scientist who challenges the reports. You're a pathetic liar who can't hold down a job mopping floors. Nobody cares what you think.

MGF, scientists at Stanford and MIT said that jet fuel could melt --not weaken -- steel. They were lying. And for you to shift the goal posts from "melt" to "weaken" makes you a liar too.

Brian, you're not a scientist from Stanford or MIT. You're a failed janitor who wears women's underwear and calls people "girls". Nobody cares what you think.

Where do you get the idea that I dropped out of SJSU--you CSUMB dropout? Don't tell me--you're afraid to graduate because if you did you would have to face the fact that the opportunities you imagine for yourself do not exist.

My, such squealing!

Brian, does it matter which college you flunked out of? I mean, a delusional liar like you would have flunked out of any college, Stanford, Cal, Humboldt State, UC-Santa Cruz. Which college you flunked out of is irrelevant. The fact remains that you flunked out of college and can't even hold down a job mopping floors, which is why you live with your parents and spend every day babbling about invisible widows and calling people "girls".

Skidmark--Dr. Lynn Margulis, Dr. Robert Bowman, Dr. David Gregg, Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, and 40 PhD engineers challenge the NIST reports. You can change the subject but that doesn't change the facts.

Scientists at Stanford and MIT said that jet fuel could melt --not weaken -- steel. They were lying. You can change the subject but that doesn't change the facts.

Where did you get the idea that I flunked out of college? When did I ever babble about invisible widows? You can change the subject but that doesn't change the facts.

Skidmark--Dr. Lynn Margulis, Dr. Robert Bowman, Dr. David Gregg, Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, and 40 PhD engineers challenge the NIST reports. You can change the subject but that doesn't change the facts.

Brian, you're not a scientist. You're a failed janitor who lives with his parents. Nobody cares what you have to say about Dr. Bowman or Dr. Gregg or anyone else.

Scientists at Stanford and MIT said that jet fuel could melt --not weaken -- steel. They were lying. You can change the subject but that doesn't change the facts.

Brian, you're not from Stanford or MIT, you're a pathetic liar who has wasted the last 40 years of his life. Nobody cares what you think about Stanford or MIT and their science faculties.

Where did you get the idea that I flunked out of college? When did I ever babble about invisible widows? You can change the subject but that doesn't change the facts.

Well, given that you're a mentally ill former janitor, it's obvious you never graduated from college, but I suppose it's possible that you flunked out of high school, and thus could never get admitted to college. Point taken.

Also, how many times have you babbled about Laurie Van Auken or Mindy Kleinberg? There are your invisible widows right there.

Skidmark--Dr. Lynn Margulis, Dr. Robert Bowman, Dr. David Gregg, Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, and 40 PhD engineers challenge the NIST reports. You can change the subject but that doesn't change the facts.

Scientists at Stanford and MIT said that jet fuel could melt --not weaken -- steel. They were lying. You can change the subject but that doesn't change the facts.

Where did you get the idea that Lorie Van Auken and Mindy Kleinberg are invisible? Does Philip Shenon write about invisible-Americans?

"NIST acknowledges that WTC7 fell for 2.25 seconds at freefall. This is impossible according to the first law of thermodynamics"

Nope.

Thermodynamics has nothing to do with it.

"--unless explosives or incendiaries are used to remove the supporting structure below."

This assumes the supporting structure below had not already collapsed - which it had. The sound of internal collapse was heard well before the entire building came down. This is why nobody was standing near WTC7 when it came down.

"--unless explosives or incendiaries are used to remove the supporting structure below."

This assumes the supporting structure below had not already collapsed - which it had. The sound of internal collapse was heard well before the entire building came down. This is why nobody was standing near WTC7 when it came down.

Duh.

Holy shit. THIS! Why is this so hard to believe for the troofers? They get so ANGRILY worked up about this, that they have to give their blog handles spiteful parodies of peoples' names and suggest violent responses about every little disagreement.

Skidmark, you can change the subject but that doesn't change the facts.

Yes, the facts are that you have no evidence that there was any explosives or thermite at the WTC, but there's lots of evidence that you're an unemployed janitor who was kicked out of SJSU, and also that you were kicked out of AE911Truth for stalking Carol Brouillet.

How can you claim that the laws of thermodynamics have nothing to do with a building collapsing? Have you no idea of how ignorant you are? Obviously you never even had freshman chemistry.

It's amazing that an unemployed janitor who failed out of SJSU knows more about physics than the faculty of the physics department at Stanford and MIT.

So you claim that WTC7 fell at freefall because it had already collapsed? Have you no idea of how ignorant you are?

The fact that Brian is delusional and illiterate explains why he failed out of SJSU.

Billman, so you're validating MGF's claim that the building fell at freefall because it had already fallen before it fell? Have you no idea of how ignorant you are?

He also posts lots of spam to try to cover up the fact that he's an unemployed janitor who failed out of SJSU.

Billman wrote: I am agreeing with MGF that there was internal collapse. There's plenty of evidence supporting this.

Oh yeah? What evidence is there of an internal collapse other than that the penthouse fell down? How can the entire interior of a building fall down invisibly and not perturb the outer structure one bit?

Even MGF did not say that the buildings fell at free fall. Who cares what MGF said or did not say? He doesn't know what he's talking about, he makes up his facts, and he seems to be lying about being a CSUMB dropout because it's pretty obvious that he never had the freshman chemistry that a geology major should have had.

"Billman, so you're validating MGF's claim that the building fell at freefall because it had already fallen before it fell? Have you no idea of how ignorant you are?"

Look, retard, the building fell as fast as it did because it was, and I'm quoting your source here - 70% air. That means little resistance. The building had been collapsing internally for up to 20 minutes before it came. The same is true for the Twin Towers.

Thermodynamics doesn't apply because it deals with a big-picture of a reaction or response. The discussion of the collapse of WTC7, or the other two buildings deals with a small scale (or micro-scale) picture of the event.

It came down to specific damage, specific areas, specific support columns, and Thermodynamics doesn't address these areas.

Oh yeah? What evidence is there of an internal collapse other than that the penthouse fell down?

Funny you automatically can point out the penthouse, but because it invalidates the rest of the bullshit you're about to spew, you have to magically invalidate it by saying "other than." Nevermind that MGF also brought up that the building (WTC7) was creaking and internally collapsing hours before it finally gave in, which is in fact why the area was evacuated hours before.

How can the entire interior of a building fall down invisibly and not perturb the outer structure one bit?

Nobody in this thread said "the entire" interior.

And, even though the ENTIRE interior did not collapse there were still what you would call pertubutions on the outher structure....

Billman, so you're validating MGF's claim that the building fell at freefall because it had already fallen before it fell?

When he claimed no such thing.

He doesn't know what he's talking about,

And apparently, you don't know what he's talking about either, since you're making up things you claim he is saying in this thread.

he makes up his facts, and he seems to be lying about being a CSUMB dropout because it's pretty obvious that he never had the freshman chemistry that a geology major should have had.

So. Who are you? Do we need to fill out an application of our academic credentials to debate on a blog that only the 10 of us regulars who still come here actually read? If so, let's debate YOUR credentials for a moment...

NIST admitted that WTC7 fell at freefall for 2.25 seconds.

Alright, then like MGF said, if that IS true, why are explosives or incendiaries of some type the ONLY answer when internal collapses had been going on for quite some time?

MGF, the perimeter of the building was not 70% air. You think the exterior walls of the building, which were designed to hold up much of the weight of the floors with a considerable safety factor should provide little resistance? You don't know what you're talking about.

Thermodynamics applies in the big picture and it applies at the molecular level. You don't know what you're talking about--and if you had taken freshman chemistry you wouldn't say such stupid things.

Billman, what internal collapses of WTC7 took place hours before the final collapse happened? NIST doesn't mention those. Where do you get your information on these?

Of what relevance is your picture of WTC1 to WTC7?

MGF said when I noted the 2.5 second freefall perios "This assumes the supporting structure below had not already collapsed - which it had." So he's claiming the supporting structure of the building collapsed before the building collapsed. Which is impossible, but I'm used to that kind of nonsense from MGF.

I don't say we need to fill out an application of our academic credentials--there's no point because most of you would just lie anyway. But MGF claims that he has almost finished a degree in geology at CSUMB and it's obvious that he's never even had the freshman courses for that degree. He's a liar.

NIST admitted that WTC7 fell at freefall for 2.25 seconds. That can't happen unless there is no structural support. What do you not understand about structural support? It's a pretty simple concept. Your tabletop can't fall at freefall in perfect symmetry unless all of its legs are removed simultaneously.

Skidmark, that's ridiculous. Scientists point out that the NIST report admits that WTC7 fell at freefall for 2.25 seconds, that this is impossible according to the 1st law of thermodynamics unless some agent has removed the building's structural report, and thus NIST's collapse theory is untenable. NIST admitted as much when their final report removed the claim made in the draft report that their analysis was "consistent with physical principles". Their analysis is not consistent with physical principles, and they know it. They don't believe their own report.

Skidmark, that's ridiculous. Scientists point out that the NIST report admits that WTC7 fell at freefall for 2.25 seconds, that this is impossible according to the 1st law of thermodynamics unless some agent has removed the building's structural report, and thus NIST's collapse theory is untenable.

Really? Then how come no scientists say this? The only one who says this stuff is you, and you're a mentally ill unemployed janitor who failed out of San Jose State.

NIST admitted as much when their final report removed the claim made in the draft report that their analysis was "consistent with physical principles". Their analysis is not consistent with physical principles, and they know it. They don't believe their own report.

Really? Then how come NIST doesn't say they don't believe their own report. The only person who says that NIST doesn't believe their own report is a mentally ill unemployed janitor who failed out of San Jose State.

Where do you get the idea that I failed out of San Jose State?

From you, which is where I get most of my ideas about you. I got the idea that you failed out of San Jose State because you told us you did. I got the idea that you're an unemployed janitor because you told us you are. I got the idea that you are "petgoat" because you said you are "petgoat".

Skidmark, scientists point out that the NIST report admits that WTC7 fell at freefall for 2.25 seconds, that this is impossible according to the 1st law of thermodynamics unless some agent has removed the building's structural report, and thus NIST's collapse theory is untenable. See the video "9/11 Explosive Evidence: Experts Speak Out".

Why would you expect NIST to say they don't believe their own report? That would require a degree of integrity that liars such as Dr. John Gross and Dr. Shyam Sunder do not possess. They made clear that they do not believe their own report when they removed the claim that their analysis was "consistent with physical principles". If it's not consistent with physical principles, then it's not believable.

Skidmark, scientists point out that the NIST report admits that WTC7 fell at freefall for 2.25 seconds, that this is impossible according to the 1st law of thermodynamics unless some agent has removed the building's structural report, and thus NIST's collapse theory is untenable. See the video "9/11 Explosive Evidence: Experts Speak Out".

Brian, I'm not interested in your delusional babbling, since you're an unemployed janitor who failed out of SJSU. I want scientists who dispute the official theories.

Why would you expect NIST to say they don't believe their own report? That would require a degree of integrity that liars such as Dr. John Gross and Dr. Shyam Sunder do not possess. They made clear that they do not believe their own report when they removed the claim that their analysis was "consistent with physical principles". If it's not consistent with physical principles, then it's not believable.

I don't expect NIST to say they don't believe their own report, because the only person who says the report is wrong is a mentally ill unemployed janitor who failed out of SJSU.

And you can post all the dumbspam you want about Dr. Gross and Dr. Sunder, but it doesn't change the fact that they're experts and you're a mentally ill unemployed janitor who failed out of SJSU. Nobody cares what you think.

When did I say that I failed out of San Jose State?

You said so last November.

I'm glad you're not disputing that you're an unemployed janitor or "petgoat" anymore.

Ian, you have dropped all pretense to an argument. All you do is lie about me. That made a certain amount of sense years ago if you believed that your lies could intimidate me, but I think I've demonstrated by now that it won't work.

When did I say last November that I "failed out of San Jose State"? You're lying.

"They made clear that they do not believe their own report when they removed the claim that their analysis was 'consistent with physical principles'. "

Brian, how much glue do you have to sniff to come up with this stuff? So NIST thought, it's OK to tell lie after lie to cover up mass murder -- but to pretend those lies are consistent with physical principles, well, that would be unethical! Let's get that claim out of there!

MR, competent liars lie as little as possible. To claim that their analysis was consistent with physical principles when it was clearly not consistent with physical principles would be a blatant and pointless lie. Pretty clearly most of the engineering community and most of the public couldn't care less whether the report is consistent with physical principles or not.

Wrong, Brian. NIST showed that the initial period of descent was at less than gravitational acceleration. There's your resistance right there. When the initial descent started, the building had already weakened enough so that a multi-floor section of the building couldn't support the load above it. The initial slower-than-free-fall period of descent (1.75 seconds) represents the remaining structural support of that section giving out completely. Then there was a 2.25 second period of unresisted fall as the upper building fell through the section.

I don't like oversimplifying things, but to dumb this stuff down enough for your glue-addled brain, imagine Jon Gold on skinny stilts. The stilts will bend first as they resist Mr. Gold's considerable heft. One stilt will eventually snap, and the other stilt, now suddenly bearing the entire load, will snap immediately after the first, sending Mr. Gold into momentary freefall. Gold will again encounter resistance as his legs hit the ground. Now, I'm not saying a fat guy on stilts is an accurate model for WTC7, so don't try to bring up that strawman. This is only a simple illustration of how there can be resistance AND free fall without the use of explosives. The WTC7 problem is much more complex, but you can't just assume the 2.25-second period of "freefall" breaks the laws of physics. You need to formally prove it, and no truther has done that.

Furthermore, NIST reported that internal collapse led the external collapse. If the collapsing internal structure tugs down on the outer part of the structure, the net downward force is then equal to the gravitational force plus the tugging force minus the resistance force. If the latter two forces cancel completely, then the outer shell can briefly accelerate at g even when the resistance is greater than zero.

"MR, it's not consistent with physical principles because there is 2.25 seconds of freefall and unless explosives or incendiaries were involved, that violates the 1st law of thermodynamics."

Oink oink oink.

The First Law of Thermodynamics doesn't apply. The 2nd Law does ( I know, you'll have to google it, then have someone explain it to you with crayons). The collapse of all three buildings can be explained with the 2nd Law.

But whatever, you've been unusually hilarious on the last three threads. Did they change your medication?

MR, when I look at the video I see no "initial period of descent". I see a sudden onset of freefall collapse. Upon what data does NIST base its claim of an "initial period of descent"? How does an invisible "initial period" result in weakening of the structure? If the columns are buckling, the roofline should be moving.

WTC7 had 83 stilts. All 83 stilts have to break simultaneously for the building to come straight down. Also consider that according to NIST's theory most of these stilts are holding up nothing more than their own weight. No roof, no floors, no office furniture. So your idea that they are overloaded is silly. And your idea that they are bent is silly because the roof would move if they bent.

Your followup notion that the interior of the building somehow exerted a force on the exterior of the building after the interior had fallen down makes no sense.

MGF, your continued assertion that the laws of physics don't apply only shows your ridiculous levels of ignorance. It's OK that you don't know the laws of physics--lots of people don't. But reasonable people don't pretend to knowledge they don't have and you have no idea how foolish you sound.

Pray tell, how does the second law of thermodynamics apply to the buildings?The second law applies to the molten steel, because it provides that heat can only flow from a hotter heat source to a cooler heat sink, and thus it doesn't matter how long you cook steel in a 1200 F fire, it will never get hot enough to melt. And yet several PhDs testified to molten steel.

"MR, when I look at the video I see no 'initial period of descent'. I see a sudden onset of freefall collapse."

Nobody cares what you see. The collapse time was about 40% longer than that of free fall for the first 18 stories of descent. See NCSTAR 1A, page 45. Here's NCSTAR 1A Fig. 3-15, so people can judge for themselves whether there is or is not an initial period of less-than-freefall descent. Hint: if this period didn't exist, then there would be a straight line extending from point (0,0). There isn't.

"How does an invisible "initial period" result in weakening of the structure? If the columns are buckling, the roofline should be moving."

(*Knocks on Brian's head*) Anybody home? The roofline IS moving when the columns are buckling. This corresponds to Stage 1 of the aforementioned graph.

"All 83 stilts have to break simultaneously for the building to come straight down."

Why? Is that part of your meatball-on-a-fork theory?

"And your idea that they are bent is silly because the roof would move if they bent."

Again, the roof did move. NIST's collapse stage 1.

"Your followup notion that the interior of the building somehow exerted a force on the exterior of the building after the interior had fallen down makes no sense."

I didn't say the interior of the building exerted any force after it had fallen down. You have the sequence wrong. The interior collapse started first, then the exterior started collapsing along with it. At a given point in time, the interior collapse was more advanced than the exterior collapse. Read the NIST report.

"Pray tell, how does the second law of thermodynamics apply to the buildings?"

Once the building began total collapse it became an irreversible process which could not be stopped until all of the energy within the building had been spent.

Each floor contained thousands of kilo joules of stored in the concrete, just a little less than a tactical nuclear warhead. Combined with the building's design the collapse was hardly unusual. The problem with Gage's ass-backwards fantasy is WTC7's collapse is seen as a single even, which allows him to claim it violated the laws of physics. The reality is it was a SERIES of COLLAPSES, each floor collapse was a singular event which combined into the total collapse. With each collapse the buildings supports fell behind the curve against their battle with gravity, and the oncoming force from the energy release from each floor.

MR, you're missing the point that NIST's graph bears no resemblance to reality. The video shows that the wall is standing still and then it's suddenly falling at freefall. There is no period of gradual acceleration. There is no motion during stage one when the columns are supposed to be buckling.

According to the NIST report the inside of the building fell down first--before the outside fell down.

MGF, when the outer walls of the building fell, then according to NIST's fantasy, most of the interior had already fallen down. So what's the connection between the collapse of the interior and the collapse of the exterior? The exterior wall is, according to NIST, holding up nothing other than its own weight. So why does it fall? Even if you have a 4-stage collapse, each stage still has to obey the laws of physics.

"MR, you're missing the point that NIST's graph bears no resemblance to reality. The video shows that the wall is standing still and then it's suddenly falling at freefall. There is no period of gradual acceleration. There is no motion during stage one when the columns are supposed to be buckling."

No offense, 'goat, but I think I'll trust the scientists' measurements over yours.

"According to the NIST report the inside of the building fell down first--before the outside fell down."

The internal collapse was still in progress when the outside of the building started falling. NIST said the exterior columns buckled as the failed building core moved downward.

And our favorite unemployed mentally ill janitor is back to spam this blog about how magic thermite elves destroyed the WTC.

Brian, by all means, continue to demonstrate how you're a pathetic burnt-out dinosaur by babbling more about worm food like RFK. It shows how much the last 40 years of your life have been wasted. I imagine 1968 was when you still had a chance and before you failed out of San Jose State and damaged your brain with drugs.

Captain Crotchrot lies, "...your belief that I "can't grasp a simple concept like ΔT" only shows your residency on Fantasy Island. I'm the one who told you it was simple. You seemed to think it was profound."

Then why couldn't you answer the question? Claiming that a concept is "simple" while you simultaneously refused to answer the question is FRAUD.

FACT: You didn't understand the concept until I explained it to you.

You're an uneducated jackass who masquerades as a "scholar." In fact, you couldn't pass a formal examination in high school-level chemistry, physics or remedial mathematics.

Bottom line: You're an insane, arrogant charlatan.

Hell, if we beat the bullshit out of you with a boat oar we could bury your remains in a matchbox.

ButtGoo, where did you get the idea that I couldn't answer the question? Next you'll demand that I convert degrees C to F. You lie and lie and lie and lie. Too bad your cookbook "education" termed out.

MR, where did the scientists get their data about motion of the roofline? I don't see it in the video.

What, I have to look up stuff for you now? NIST explained how it measured the initial motion of the roofline in NCSTAR 1-9 section 12.5.3.

Hypothetically, if there were no Stage 1, that would probably mean the perimeter wall was yanked downward by the already collapsing core. Unless you'd rather believe that evil Americans planted silent explosives on every load-bearing column over 8 floors of a secured, occupied building for no apparent reason.

What, I have to look up stuff for you now? NIST explained how it measured the initial motion of the roofline in NCSTAR 1-9 section 12.5.3.

Of course you do. We're talking about Brian Good here. As long as he pretends something doesn't exist, he can continue to talk about his "evidence" that invisible elevator repairmen planted silent explosives and spray-on magic thermite to destroy the WTC.

Just ask him about the fires in the WTC. They were small and going out. How do we know this? Brian says so. Apparently, a mentally ill unemployed janitor who babbles about irrelevant dead people like RFK is an expert on fires.

Captain Crotchrot lies, "...where did you get the idea that I couldn't answer the question?"

Because you repeatedly refused to answer the question. A professional with a background in physical science doesn't refuse to answer simple questions. A liar who claims to have a "scientific reputation" refuses to answer simple questions. Got it, 'tard?

ButtGoo, where in the world did you get the idea that a professional with a background in physical science doesn't refuse to answer simple questions? Especially when the stoooooopid question is leveled by an irrational liar and the resulting inferential incompetence will surely prove amusing?

ButtGoo, where in the world did you get the idea that a professional with a background in physical science doesn't refuse to answer simple questions? Especially when the stoooooopid question is leveled by an irrational liar and the resulting inferential incompetence will surely prove amusing?

Brian, the "inferential incompetence" of your delusional babbling is what keeps me coming back here to make fun of you and your obsession with "widows".

Plus, you have the most ridiculous haircut ever. It's a homeless mullet. And you thought you could get Carol Brouillet to leave her husband for you!

You're not a professional, you're a pervert, failed janitor, PROVEN compulsive liar and a college dropout who can't pass a formal examination in high-school-level physics, chemistry or remedial mathematics.

Now go parade your "inferential incompetence" before the chinless douche-bags who frequent 911flogger.

For example, you've NEVER proven so much as one of your 100% fact-free assertions. And on the rare occasions when you're compelled to provide a hyperlink to substantiate your argument, the link proves to be in diametric opposition to your propaganda.

I guess that's the way it goes when you're a compulsive liar.

Tell us more about ΔT, jackass.

Lie to us once again and attempt to convince us that velocity is measured in m/s^2.

Idiot.

Tell us more about "molten steel," while you quote mine Dr. Astaneh-Asl who wrote, "...please stop using a phrase 'molten steel' from eight years of my work and statements to further your absolutely misguided and baseless conspiracy theories and find another subject for your discussion. You are hurting the victims' families immensely and if you have any humanity you would stop doing so and will not use my name nor the out of context words from my work."

Thus, you're a liar and a science illiterate charlatan with all the intellectual integrity of a street walking whore.

If Dr. Astaneh-Asl did not want to be quoted, he should not have told PBS that he "saw melting of girders at World Trade Center." Dr. James Glanz saw melted steel too. Also Captain Philip Ruvolo, FDNY. Also Leslie Robertson told a Stanford audience in 2002 that he saw "like a little river of molten steel flowing".

So what part of the following definitive statement do you fail to understand, Pinocchio?

"...please stop using a phrase 'molten steel' from eight years of my work and statements to further your absolutely misguided and baseless conspiracy theories and find another subject for your discussion. You are hurting the victims' families immensely and if you have any humanity you would stop doing so and will not use my name nor the out of context words from my work." -- Dr. Astaneh-Asl, professor of structural engineering, UC Berkeley.

Again, quote mining is NOT evidence.

And we know that you're quote mining because not one of the innocent victims of your intellectual dishonesty have joined or advocate for the so-called "9/11 truth movement."

Thus, I stand by my statement: You're a liar and a science illiterate charlatan with all the intellectual integrity of a street walking whore.

So when do you plan to provide evidence to substantiate your 100% fact-free bilge, asshole?

If Dr. Astaneh-Asl didn't want to be quoted, he shouldn't have said it to PBS. What is it about melting of girders that so frightens you that you try to deny it even though it's corroborated by other witnesses?

So you continue to admit that all you have are quote mining and logical fallacies.

And you have not one bit of alleged evidence "corroborated by other witnesses."

Proof?

That's easy, goat fucker.

Where are Ruvolo, Robertson and Glanz's statements of support for the self-appointed "9/11 truth movement"?

I'll tell you where we'll find their alleged support for your cult of liars and scumbags. The same place we'll find your head: Slammed so deeply up your filthy, unwashed ass that we'll need a World-class team of proctologists to find it.

Thanks for proving my point, shit-for-brains. You have no evidence to support your lying bilge whatsoever.

What part of the following statement do you fail to understand, asshole?

"...please stop using a phrase 'molten steel' from eight years of my work and statements to further your absolutely misguided and baseless conspiracy theories and find another subject for your discussion. You are hurting the victims' families immensely and if you have any humanity you would stop doing so and will not use my name nor the out of context words from my work." -- Dr. Astaneh-Asl, professor of structural engineering, UC Berkeley.

Now blame the victim for your intellectual dishonesty, asshole.

You're a good little Republican ass-clown aren't you, scumbag?

After all, you blame the victim with abandon.

So when do you plan to provide real evidence to support your lies and bilge, scat muncher?

"...please stop using a phrase 'molten steel' from eight years of my work and statements to further your absolutely misguided and baseless conspiracy theories and find another subject for your discussion. You are hurting the victims' families immensely and if you have any humanity you would stop doing so and will not use my name nor the out of context words from my work." -- Dr. Astaneh-Asl, professor of structural engineering, UC Berkeley.

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

So when do you plan to provide real evidence to substantiate your lies and bilge, scat muncher?

If Dr. Astaneh-Asl didn't want to be quoted, he shouldn't have said it to PBS.

I don't think the good doctor cares either way what a mentally ill unemployed janitor thinks about him.

Actually, that's not true. He has said that he doesn't agree with the nonsense that pathetic liars like you attribute to him. He has a reputation to uphold and doesn't need it ruined by an obsessed delusional liar who believes in magic thermite elves and invisible widows.

What is it about melting of girders that so frightens you that you try to deny it even though it's corroborated by other witnesses?

Brian, your delusions are not evidence of anything. You're a failed janitor who believe in modified attack baboons. Nobody cares what you think.

Well, it's real evidence that you're hysterical and desperate for 9/11 to be an inside job, so you'll grasp an any irrelevant piece of nonsense and try to hold it up. Then normal people laugh at you and your hideous haircut.

ButtGoo, Dr. Astaneh-Asl told PBS that he saw melting of girders. A disclaimer allegedly posted at some obscure website is hardly a retraction. Debunkers are known to lie. If Dr. Astaneh-Asl wishes to retract his statement he should do so publicly, and he should send communications to outfits like 911truth.org, 911blogger, truthaction, and ae911truth. His failure to do so suggests that the verbiage you quote was fabricated by the website that features it.

Skidmark, the quote was "Where do you get the idea that I failed out of San Jose State?"

You're a liar. I'm not. Dr. Astaneh said what he said. If he wants to change what he said he has to change it. He hasn't changed it.

Skidmark, the quote was "Where do you get the idea that I failed out of San Jose State?"

Exactly. You said "I failed out of Sam Jose State". Like Dr. Astaneh-Asl, you shouldn't be saying such things if you don't want people quoting you. You said "I failed out of San Jose State", thus there's evidence that you failed out of San Jose State. All the squealing and dumbspam won't change the facts.

Ian, Dr. Astaneh said "I saw melting of girders at World Trade Center." If you would bother to check the transcript you see that he said that, and it was not taken out of context. He never retracted it. He never said anyone misquoted him. He never called anyone who quoted him a liar, he never bothered to issue any request to the truth movement, and there is no reason to believe in the authenticity of his alleged statemnent that you quote from some obscure website.

You on the other hand, dishoinestly misrepresented what I said. You are a liar. I did not say "I failed out of San Jose State." I never said any such thing.

There used to be a guy in this forum who thought it was amusing to create quotes like "I believe I can prove . . . . that I am . . . an idiot." That idiot is a thousand times smarter than you are.

Ian, Dr. Astaneh said "I saw melting of girders at World Trade Center." If you would bother to check the transcript you see that he said that, and it was not taken out of context. He never retracted it. He never said anyone misquoted him. He never called anyone who quoted him a liar, he never bothered to issue any request to the truth movement, and there is no reason to believe in the authenticity of his alleged statemnent that you quote from some obscure website.

This desperate squealing is amusing, Brian.

You on the other hand, dishoinestly misrepresented what I said. You are a liar. I did not say "I failed out of San Jose State." I never said any such thing.

Brian, I quoted you directly above. That's what you said: "I failed out of San Jose State". Why are you so afraid of the truth?

Ian, all you have is lies and false labels. I did not say "I failed out of San Jose State". Your persistent lying discredits all the posters at this forum who fail to call you out on it. You think 9/11 is a joke. You think truth is a joke. You think the widows' frustration is a joke.

Ian, all you have is lies and false labels. I did not say "I failed out of San Jose State". Your persistent lying discredits all the posters at this forum who fail to call you out on it. You think 9/11 is a joke. You think truth is a joke. You think the widows' frustration is a joke.

Squeal squeal squeal!

Dr. Asteneh-Asl said "I saw melting of girders at World Trade Center." That is an accurate and honest quote.

False.

He did not say "Where do you get the idea that I saw melting of girders at World Trade Center?" For you to claim some kind of parallel there is a despicable lie.

Brian, anyone can see that you said "I failed out of San Jose State". Your hysterical attempt to bury that in spam does nothing but discredit the truth movement.

"The widows are still waiting for answers to 273 of their 300 questions."

Funny, Brian, when I Google the phrase "273 of their 300 questions" I see that the only person who's used that phrase, besides you, is petgoat from Democratic Underground. What a weird, wild coincidence!

MR, so are you really dumb enough to think your quote mining represents a point? Or do you, like ButtGirl and Skidmark here, satisfy yourself with trying to fool really, really, really stupid readers?

His point is that you're a pathetic liar. Everyone knows you are petgoat, and yet you continue to deny it. Why are you so afraid of the truth?

Skidmark, why it gives you pleasure to lie about the victims of 9/11 I don't know, but it's twisted.

I don't lie about the victims of 9/11, petgoat. I do, however, take great pleasure in humiliating you by pointing out that you're a mentally ill unemployed janitor who failed out of San Jose State. Your hysterical squealing over this is funny.

Brian, according to the Weather Channel, it should be a beautiful sunny day with temperatures in the mid-60s in the Bay Area.

Why don't you go for a bike ride or a hike or something? You're an old man. You're not going to live forever. Wouldn't it be better to get out and about instead of wasting yet another day posting dumbspam about invisible widows?

Skidmark, the only thing you're qualified to give advice about is lying, and since you're not even competent to lie right, your advice is worthless. I have biked, I have hiked, I have canoed and sailed and snorkeled. I have camped out in the mountains and the deserts for weeks at a time. There is nothing there for me to learn anymore. It would be like reading MacBeth for the hundredth time.

I have many many times pointed out that Appendix 4 at justicefor911.org shows that of the widows' 300 questions, only 27 were properly answered, 73 got evasive or non-sequitur or otherwise improper responses, and 200 got no response at all. Your persistent claims that the widows have no questions and that there are no widows are a despicable lie.

MR, since Fahrenheit 9/11 has sold millions of copies in DVD and grossed hundreds of millions in ticket sales, you'd hardly expect that only one person in the world was initially skeptical of the film and then decided to fact-check it. I know several people in the 9/11 Truth movement who got involved because they set out to debunk truther claims and found that they couldn't. And unlike the crowd here, they were honest enough to admit they were wrong instead of turning to gossip and lies to support their illusions.

Now I suppose you can go out and google "support their illusions" and prove to yourself that I am Joshua Kutcher; google "debunk truther claims" to prove I am Adam Taylor; google "decided to fact-check it" to prove I am Dave Michael; google "initially skeptical of the film" and conclude that I am Isaac Grambo.

Just as foolishly as a Kevin Barrett, you find it very easy to prove to yourself what you want to believe.

Captain Crotchrot squeals, "...Now I suppose you can go out and google "support their illusions" and prove to yourself that I am Joshua Kutcher; google "debunk truther claims" to prove I am Adam Taylor; google "decided to fact-check it" to prove I am Dave Michael; google "initially skeptical of the film" and conclude that I am Isaac Grambo."

Here's where you can read about Dr. Jones's analysis of the formerly-molten ferrous material. (See slides 71 to 76) http://www.scribd.com/fb-596065570/d/126315-Answers-to-911-Objections-and-Questions-Prof-Stephen-E-Jones-Pres

I didn't quote-mine anything. Dr. Astaneh said what he said. I did not take it out of context. Your belief that you can make a fact go away simply by declaring it a heretical text shows how your teensy mind works, ButtGirl.

Skidmark, the only thing you're qualified to give advice about is lying, and since you're not even competent to lie right, your advice is worthless. I have biked, I have hiked, I have canoed and sailed and snorkeled. I have camped out in the mountains and the deserts for weeks at a time. There is nothing there for me to learn anymore. It would be like reading MacBeth for the hundredth time.

Who said anything about "learning"? It's about experiencing life, a life you're wasting away posting idiotic spam about invisible widows and magic thermite elves. Christ, Brian, you've been posting the same nonsense about "widows" and their imaginary questions for 3 years now. I'm sure everybody else could write a long list of things they've accomplished in that time period while you've done nothing.

I have many many times pointed out that Appendix 4 at justicefor911.org shows that of the widows' 300 questions, only 27 were properly answered, 73 got evasive or non-sequitur or otherwise improper responses, and 200 got no response at all. Your persistent claims that the widows have no questions and that there are no widows are a despicable lie.

See what I mean? You're still posting hysterical spam about widows here.

MR, since Fahrenheit 9/11 has sold millions of copies in DVD and grossed hundreds of millions in ticket sales, you'd hardly expect that only one person in the world was initially skeptical of the film and then decided to fact-check it. I know several people in the 9/11 Truth movement who got involved because they set out to debunk truther claims and found that they couldn't. And unlike the crowd here, they were honest enough to admit they were wrong instead of turning to gossip and lies to support their illusions.

Nobody cares that you're gullible enough to start believing in magic thermite elves because of some movie.

Now I suppose you can go out and google "support their illusions" and prove to yourself that I am Joshua Kutcher; google "debunk truther claims" to prove I am Adam Taylor; google "decided to fact-check it" to prove I am Dave Michael; google "initially skeptical of the film" and conclude that I am Isaac Grambo.

You're none of those people. You're Brian Good, an unemployed janitor from Palo Alto who is well known for being thrown out of the truth movement for stalking Carol Brouillet, Willie Rodriguez, Kevin Barrett, and Craig Ranke. You failed out of San Jose State, and post spam all over the internet as "petgoat", "punxsutawneybarney", "truebeleaguer", "truetruther", "watson", and "contrivance". You were banned from wikipedia for vandalizing the pages of the Chinese olympic gymnastics team.

What part of the following statement do you fail to understand, Mr. Quote Miner?

"...please stop using a phrase 'molten steel' from eight years of my work and statements to further your absolutely misguided and baseless conspiracy theories and find another subject for your discussion. You are hurting the victims' families immensely and if you have any humanity you would stop doing so and will not use my name nor the out of context words from my work." -- Dr. Astaneh-Asl, professor of structural engineering, UC Berkeley.

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

So when do you plan to provide a link to Dr. Jones' non-existent "assay," Petgoat?

Skidmark, you continue to lie, and lie, and lie, and lie. And since you seem to believe that watching a bunch of skinny men in their pajamas stand around scratching their balls is "experiencing life", I'm not surprised that you give such stupid advice about my day. I experienced more life before I was 30 years old than you will in your entire life.

The widows' questions are not imaginary. 273 of their 300 questions remain unanswered.

Since I did not use the phrase "molten steel", the unauthenticated quote that you attribute to Dr. Astaneh-Asl does not apply. He told PBS "I saw melting of girders at World Trade Center" and none of your attempts to lawyer that away can change that.

Skidmark, you continue to lie, and lie, and lie, and lie. And since you seem to believe that watching a bunch of skinny men in their pajamas stand around scratching their balls is "experiencing life", I'm not surprised that you give such stupid advice about my day. I experienced more life before I was 30 years old than you will in your entire life.

My, such squealing!

Hold on, there is a great line here that needs to be quoted again.

I experienced more life before I was 30 years old than you will in your entire life.

Who are you kidding, Brian? You're an unemployed janitor who failed out of college with no friends, no family, and not even the "truth" movement will let you join their gang. Your life is a pathetic failure. That's why you babble about irrelevant dead people like RFK. The last time your life still had promise was 1968, and you're bitter about it.

All you do is spam the internet with your delusions about magic thermite elves and invisible widows. You're a hopeless failure.